Natural Hazards

, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 1073–1089 | Cite as

Influence of local site conditions on strong ground motion characteristics at Tarai region of Uttarakhand, India

  • Bhavesh Pandey
  • Ravi S. Jakka
  • Ashok Kumar
Original Paper


Local site conditions strongly influence the characteristics of strong ground motion. In this study, influence of local site conditions on characteristics of strong ground motion records and their further effects on hazard studies were investigated for the Tarai region of Uttarakhand, India, where the thickness of soil cover varies significantly from few meters to several hundreds of meters. Another importance of these sites is that these sites have strong motion recording stations. Site characterization of each of the strong ground motion station is conducted using MASW tests to obtain shear wave velocity profiles of the sites. Further, site-specific ground response analysis is carried out using SHAKE2000 to investigate local site effects on strong ground motion records. Results clearly show the differences in IS 1893:2002 (Part-1) suggested 5 % damping response spectrum and the one obtained from ground response analyses. For sites having Vs30 around 200 m/s, constant acceleration frequency band is significantly widened in comparison with 5 % damping response spectrum of IS-1893:2002 (Part-1). This study further suggests the importance of thorough site characterization of strong motion instrumentation sites.


Site characterization Response spectra Microzonation Shear wave velocity Site response 



The authors wish to thank the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, and the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES) for providing funds to execute this research. We are also thankful to Mr. Subodh Jain and Mr. Prem from Soil Dynamics Laboratory and other technical staff of Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT, Roorkee, who have made important contributions to this work.


  1. Aki K (1988) Local site effects on strong ground motion. In: Proceedings of earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II, Park City, Utah, June 27–30, pp 103–155Google Scholar
  2. Boore DM (2004) Can site response be predicted? J Earthq Eng 8(1):1–41Google Scholar
  3. Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq Spectra 10(4):617–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Geological Survey of India (GSI) (1998) Geological maps of India. Geological Survey of India, KolkataGoogle Scholar
  5. Geological Survey of India (GSI) (2000) Seismotectonic atlas of India and its environs. Geological Survey of India, KolkataGoogle Scholar
  6. Govindaraju L, Bhattacharya S (2012) Site-specific earthquake response study for hazard assessment in Kolkata city, India. Nat Hazards 61:943–965. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9940-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7., National Research Institute of Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Japan
  8. IS (1893–2002) Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1—general provisions and buildings, 5th edn. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, p 42 Google Scholar
  9. Jakka RS, Shiuly A, Das R (2013) Liquefaction potential for Kolkata city. Int J Geotech Earthq Eng 4(2):18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jakka RS, Hussain M, Sharma ML (2015) Effects on amplification of strong ground motion due to deep soils. Int J Geomech Eng 8(5):663–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kumar A (2006) Software for generation of spectrum compatible time history having same phase as of a given time history. In: Proceedings of the 8th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, April 18–22, 2006, San Francisco, California, USA. Paper no 172Google Scholar
  12. MacMurdo J (1824) Papers relating to earthquake which occurred in India in 1819. Phil Mag 63:105–177Google Scholar
  13. Mittal H, Kumar A, Ramhmachhuani R (2012) Indian strong motion instrumentation network and its site characterization. Int J Geosci 3(6):1151–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Seed HB, Murarka R, Lysmer J, Idriss IM (1976) Relationships of maximum acceleration, maximum velocity, distance from source and local site conditions for moderately strong earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 66(4):1323–1342Google Scholar
  15. Seed RB, Dickenson SE, Reimer MF, Bray JD, Sitar N, Mitchell JK, Idriss IM, Kayen RE, Kropp A, Harder LF, Power MS (1990) Preliminary report on the principal geotechnical aspects of the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Report UCB/EERC-90/05, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, p 137Google Scholar
  16. Silva WJ (1988) Soil response t earthquake ground motion. EPRI Report NP-5747, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  17. Sitharam TG, Govindraju L (2004a) Geotechnical aspects and ground response studies in Bhuj earthquake, India. Geotech Geol Eng 22(439–455):2004Google Scholar
  18. Sitharam TG, Govindraju L (2004b) Geotechnical aspects and ground response studies in Bhuj earthquake, India. Geotech Geol Eng 22(439–455):2004Google Scholar
  19. Stone WC, Yokel FY, Celebi M, Hanks T, Leyendecker EV (1987) Engineering aspects of the September 19, 1985 Mexico earthquake. NBS Building Science Series 165, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20., Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earthquake EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations